Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

A Nobelist’s Energy Pitch for Obama

By Andrew C. Revkin June 28, 2010 10:17 amJune 28, 2010 10:17 am

President Obama is preparing to take another stab at seeking consensus in the Senate on energy legislation with components that could rein in emissions of greenhouse gases. He had tried to round up lawmakers for a White House meeting on the question last week but the blowup over Afghanistan policy pushed the long-simmering energy issue to this week, with a meeting now planned for Tuesday.

Last week, I sent a query to a variety of smart people who’ve spent a long time assessing the tangled interface of energy technology, climate science, politics and economics to collect their “pitches” — made as if they had 30 seconds or so to present their prime points to the president at a fantasy White House energy summit. (It sure would be nice to see the White House host a real one, with varied informed voices.) One who has weighed in is Burton Richter.

President Obama in his June 15 speech asked for action on energy before the end of the year. I have been thinking about what I would tell him if I were invited into the Oval Office. I would have time only for major themes and here are those I selected from my recent book. I would start by saying slow down.

We do not have to run everything on solar cells and windmills tomorrow to make fast progress in reducing energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. The Waxman-Markey energy bill in the House is a huge brick of paper and seeks to do everything at once. The Kerry-Lieberman bill in the Senate is nearly as complicated.

I would start with those parts of the economy where the way to make progress is clear, the potential gains are large, and the required regulations are relatively simple. To me this says: Start by focusing on cars, electricity generation and efficiency. The industrial sector is complicated and we should stay away from most of it until we know better what we are doing. Also, tell the private sector what you want done, not how they must do it. There is a huge amount of brain power in our society directed toward making money and tilting the playing field so that more money could be made by doing the right things will unleash it.

No one knows what technology will be like in 50 years so we should start with things that will have the biggest impact at the lowest cost based on what we know now. Some environmental groups won’t like this because it may divert funds from their favorite solutions to more cost-effective ones. Stop talking about Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and start talking about Greenhouse Reduction Standards (GRS). RPS limits sources to wind, solar, small hydroelectric and geothermal power. I can do a lot more at less cost by building nuclear power plants or converting coal fired generators to modern gas-fired ones.

Here is an example. In California legislation has set a goal of “a million solar roofs” by 2020. At 3 kilowatts of solar cell capacity on each roof that will cost $15 to $20 billion at today’s prices including all the subsidies that the taxpayer has to pay even if the home owner does not. For a small fraction of the cost I could eliminate more greenhouse gas by converting the large Four Corners, coal-fired electric power plant in New Mexico to natural gas. Yet there are no incentives to do so comparable to the tax credits for solar (and wind).

Make nuclear and coal-to-gas conversions part of the new GRS program. Add incentives to convert from coal to gas, build non-polluting nuclear power plants and ban new coal-fired plants unless they replace a low efficiency one with one of much higher efficiency. Don’t stop development of the renewables, but recognize that there is a long way to go until they are economic.

We should make a bigger push for energy efficiency in all sectors of our economy. Energy saved is free, emits no greenhouse gases and does not pollute the Gulf of Mexico. Mile-per-gallon standards for cars are a good thing, but we can go beyond the step to 35 mpg now required for 2016. Push it to 50 mpg by 2025 or 2030. We now use about 12 million barrels of oil per day for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks with a fleet that averages 25 mpg. At 50 mpg we would cut that to 6 million barrels per day and avoid more gulf disasters by not needing the oil.

Residential and commercial buildings use 40 percent of our primary energy, including 70 percent of all electricity, for heat light air conditioning, appliances, etc. Our government is very slow at updating appliance efficiency standards. Get them moving faster, please.

Building codes are a state matter and we have a hodgepodge of them. Can you get our state governors together to produce a few regional codes? It would be much easier to improve efficiency because there would be a bigger market for better approaches.

Stop wasting money on things that do no good like ethanol from corn. It is expensive, and at best produces only slightly less greenhouse gas than gasoline. Without subsidies from the taxpayers and government requirements to use it, no one would, but this may be one of those cases where politics overrules sense; your (and Congress’s) call. New kinds of biofuels are in the works and they may contribute to the energy portfolio, but not yet.

At the start of this discussion I said that no one knows what technology we will have 50 years from now. There is an exception to this –- we will have only what we have today if we do not spend money on R&D that can lead to advanced systems. You advocated a big increase in such funding in the campaign. The House energy bill started with one and then gave it away in budgetary horse trading to get votes. A large group of Nobel Prize winners wrote to you to ask you to get funding increased, and most recently a group of prominent leaders in the American Energy Innovation Council issued a report recommending a tripling of the budget for energy development at all stages.

We once led the world in the development of nuclear power. We lead no more. We once led in the development of solar cells. We lead no more. We once led in the development of wind energy. We lead no more. Our present course will likely lead to the U.S. being one of the world’s biggest consumers of advanced energy systems rather than one of its major producers. Perhaps with your leadership we can get on course to be at the head of the parade.

I’ll be posting more energy and climate proposals for the president in days to come. What’s yours?

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.